YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[mheslep]

I hate to admit this but the frogs (French) got it right. Nuclear power is the answer for the bulk of our needs. The French have a single design, i.e. single training program, single logistics pipeline for parts etc. Recycling of nuclear materials and waste is also accompished.

Now with nuclear being constructed we can reduce oil dependence through coal gassification and use in diesel engines. As Nuclear progresses we can transition our natural gas use for electrical generation to automobile use.

As natural gas and coal gassification are used for automobile / transportation use it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Hydrogen is a bomb waiting to go off. Has anyone seen the operating pressures for the hydrogen vehicles? I believe it is in the range of 10000psi. Can anyone say hindenburg?

Solar while usable is not for the large usage. It would take hundreds of thousands of acres to provide enough energy to make a dent. I think I saw someplace that to provide for the countries needs we would have to cover the state of texas with solar panels.

Wind is only usable where windy. Then it takes a lot of space as well.

Just my $.02

Misinformation

 

[kjsigpa]

Mheslep,

If I am providing misinformation, please let me and the rest of the posters know where the information is incorrect and provide the correct information so we can all learn. If I am correct then please admit it.

J

 

[mheslep]

Mheslep,

If I am providing misinformation, please let me and the rest of the posters know where the information is incorrect and provide the correct information so we can all learn. If I am correct then please admit it.

J

Welcome to PF kjsigpa.

Sorry that I was abrupt, but it's not my job to provide all the correct information, nor parse in detail the dozen or more claims in your post. The agreement at PF is that, regarding claims, one either posts from expertise or based on sources which you reference, especially in the science and engineering forums. The less expertise, the more references required in my view. If you care to single out anyone of those subjects - nuclear, gas, France, wind, coal gasification, etc, etc, AND your basis for making that assertion, I'll respond in kind.

 

[gmax137]

The French have a single design

If I am providing misinformation, please let me and the rest of the posters know where the information is incorrect and provide the correct information so we can all learn.

The french have both 3-loop 900 MW units and 4-loop 1300 MW units, as well as a few other units of assorted designs.

{edit} http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/rds2-26_web.pdf

 

[Buckleymanor]

The HHO systems have been pretty well debunked.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304690

That is a conclusion easily arrived at if you consider that you can't get something for nothing.
What most people don't consider even advocates of HHO systems is that if you approach it from a K.E.R.S point of view it does make some sense, energy is produced by the alternator when the vehicle is brakeing.
This energy would go to waste in slowing the vehicle. instead it is converted to brown gas or whatever.
So you ain't getting something for nothing but you are getting something that would go to waste as heat.

 

[OmCheeto]

That is a conclusion easily arrived at if you consider that you can't get something for nothing.
What most people don't consider even advocates of HHO systems is that if you approach it from a K.E.R.S point of view it does make some sense, energy is produced by the alternator when the vehicle is brakeing.
This energy would go to waste in slowing the vehicle. instead it is converted to brown gas or whatever.
So you ain't getting something for nothing but you are getting something that would go to waste as heat.

So how much HHO is generated in 10 seconds with a 14.4 volt 10 amp power source?
Never mind. I'll just do a straight energy conversion.
answer: 144 watt seconds, which = 144 joules.

hmmm... ke = 1/2 mv²

v = sqrt(144*2/1600) = 0.42 m/s, which is just shy of 1 mph.
Not quite back up to 30 mph, which is the benchmark for most of my KERS thought experiments.

Actually this will tell us what the current would have to be.
143,000 joules, which over 10 seconds yields 14,000 watts, into 14.4 volts, yields 972 amps.

Wow. I'll have to get a bigger alternator. And how much HHO would that generate? Because we of course have to store it in a bottle because we are coming to a stop.

Ah! Late for work. I'll do the math later.

 

[Buckleymanor]

So how much HHO is generated in 10 seconds with a 14.4 volt 10 amp power source?
Never mind. I'll just do a straight energy conversion.
answer: 144 watt seconds, which = 144 joules.

hmmm... ke = 1/2 mv²

v = sqrt(144*2/1600) = 0.42 m/s, which is just shy of 1 mph.
Not quite back up to 30 mph, which is the benchmark for most of my KERS thought experiments.

Actually this will tell us what the current would have to be.
143,000 joules, which over 10 seconds yields 14,000 watts, into 14.4 volts, yields 972 amps.

Wow. I'll have to get a bigger alternator. And how much HHO would that generate? Because we of course have to store it in a bottle because we are coming to a stop.

Ah! Late for work. I'll do the math later.

So it takes 144 joules to allmost produce 1mph.
But 143,000 joules to reach 30mph.
Seems a tad excesive.
Would have thought it would be more like 4,500 joules.
But I am no expert I only mentioned it made "some" sense in so far that there is "some" gain without breaking any conservation laws.
If it is possible to improve on this by using a larger alternator or fly wheel arangement then good.It might not be able to compete with the standard efficiency of a K.E.R.S arrangement.
But it might be possible to be able to store the energy produced indefinately which could be usefull,unlike a flywheel.

 

[Redbelly98]

So it takes 144 joules to allmost produce 1mph.
But 143,000 joules to reach 30mph.
Seems a tad excesive.
Would have thought it would be more like 4,500 joules.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.

To increase the velocity by a factor of 30 (from 1 to 30 mph) requires 30 squared, or 900, times as much energy.

900 x 144 J = 130,000 J. That's in the ballpark of OmCheeto's 143,000 J figure. Probably some rounding error, since the baseline speed was not exactly 1 mph.

 

[RonL]

If it is possible to improve on this by using a larger alternator or fly wheel arangement then good.It might not be able to compete with the standard efficiency of a K.E.R.S arrangement.
But it might be possible to be able to store the energy produced indefinately which could be usefull,unlike a flywheel.

When engineers can step past using a flywheel as a single function storage device, energy efficiency will move forward in a more productive way.

Ron

 

[Buckleymanor]

When engineers can step past using a flywheel as a single function storage device, energy efficiency will move forward in a more productive way.

Ron

Yes I agree.
One of the problems with the flywheel is that when the vehicle breaks it can be accelerated to it's maximum efficiency.
If the stored energy is not used shortly after, any additional breaking energy will be wasted, as there is a practical maximum that the flywheel can be accelerated to.
If the flywheel was connected to the alternator and the alternator produced brown gas which could be stored I imagine that the energy produced when breaking could be used in a more productive and efficient way.

 

[OmCheeto]

So it takes 144 joules to allmost produce 1mph.
But 143,000 joules to reach 30mph.
Seems a tad excesive.
Would have thought it would be more like 4,500 joules.
But I am no expert I only mentioned it made "some" sense in so far that there is "some" gain without breaking any conservation laws.
If it is possible to improve on this by using a larger alternator or fly wheel arangement then good.It might not be able to compete with the standard efficiency of a K.E.R.S arrangement.
But it might be possible to be able to store the energy produced indefinately which could be usefull,unlike a flywheel.

I was not aware that there was a "standard efficiency" of a KERS arrangement. I'm not really familiar any KERS arrangements as a matter of fact. But storing 130,000 joules in an HHO state strikes me as a bit dangerous, unless the gasses are kept separate or course. That much energy released instantaneously, would launch me about 500 feet into the air. Not that it would of course, but one should always look at worst case scenarios. Shrapnel is so light, and so sharp.

 

[Buckleymanor]

I was not aware that there was a "standard efficiency" of a KERS arrangement. I'm not really familiar any KERS arrangements as a matter of fact. But storing 130,000 joules in an HHO state strikes me as a bit dangerous, unless the gasses are kept separate or course. That much energy released instantaneously, would launch me about 500 feet into the air. Not that it would of course, but one should always look at worst case scenarios. Shrapnel is so light, and so sharp.

I think you will find that there is a maximum pratical amount of energy that can be stored using a flywheel KERS arrangement.
This is dependent on size materials strength and the maximum speed or revolutions the flywheel travels at, you would not want a piece of flywheel traveling at 64,000rpm engaging with the back of your head.http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/01/...hanical-kinetic-energy-recovery-system-works/
As you say it would be safer to keep the gasses produced separate I don't think hydrogen is explosive on it's own.
As with all systems there is an inherant amount of risk but with good practices these can be made much less.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think you will find that there is a maximum pratical amount of energy that can be stored using a flywheel KERS arrangement.
This is dependent on size materials strength and the maximum speed or revolutions the flywheel travels at, you would not want a piece of flywheel traveling at 64,000rpm engaging with the back of your head.http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/01/...hanical-kinetic-energy-recovery-system-works/
As you say it would be safer to keep the gasses produced separate I don't think hydrogen is explosive on it's own.
As with all systems there is an inherant amount of risk but with good practices these can be made much less.

While an interesting and novel concept, the flybrid looks a bit spendy. My worst case regen storage requirement is about 1.9 million joules, which occurs once a day on my way home from work. This is about 5 times the energy capacity of the current flybrid. And it would require the production of about 130 liters of unpressurized HHO gas to store that much energy. Now here is the part where I have a problem. Even if I had both the flybrid, and the HHO system, this would only save me $1100 over a 30 year period.

Now you might say that I've not taken into account the rest of my drive, and that is true. But my criteria for KERS are very simple. The system only needs to store the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle stopping from 30 mph. Period. Which the flybrid is more than capable of handling all by itself.

From an analysis of my trip to and from work, I stop about 50 times a day, which works out to about 6.5 million joules of recoverable energy. So the flybrid alone would save me $3800(20%), without the added terror and expense of the HHO system.

So the bottom line is, how much will a flybrid installed in a production vehicle add to the cost of the vehicle? CMU is working on a solid state, 180kj system. I estimate the current cost of a finished system to be less than $2500, retail. They also claim a 76% cost savings when driven as a pure electric vehicle vs my gas guzzler. So the savings would go from $3800 to $14,300 over a 30 year period. Yet another reason to dump the HHO idea. Burning fuels is so last century.

(As I drag my 6 mpg boat to the river again... You are such a hypocrite Om...)

ps. I probably should have stated this a bit differently;

I'm not really familiar any KERS arrangements as a matter of fact.

As we've discussed both the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326816&postcount=11" systems before.

 

[bonzoboy]

I'll give you my opinion. I've done several analyses on the subject. To sustainably operate a 1,000 MW power plant (Rankine cycle), one would need access to roughly a 65 mile diameter forest for timber; and the extracted material could not be used for any other industry (paper, pulp, etc.). The US would need about 1,000,000 MW (or 1,000GW) of capacity (because that's what we have now). So you can figure out how much land would have to be reserved for the biomass.

If you consider something even less appealing, like corn ethanol, the picture is far worse, because in that industry so much high energy feed materials (nitrates, phosphates) and water are consumed, that it just isn't environmentally or economically worth the effort (that's why those industries are all looking for subsidies).

If you want to find out if something can be done economically or commercially, see if seller of the technology is asking for a subsidy first.

 

[Topher925]

So, yesterday in the machine shop I was working on one of my many fuel cell related projects and I had an undergrad student I knew from one of the classes I TA for come up to me and ask me what I was working on. I mentioned how I was working on a fuel cell project to which he responded, "why, fuel cells are an obsolete technology".

Riddled with curiosity I asked him why he would say that. He then replied "Oh well, Professor SoAndSo taught us in his class that fuel cells have no future because they are a dead end technology. That is why no one is doing research for them anymore". I was pretty shocked by this. Not by what the professor said, I've had this professor before, and know his propaganda that he spreads quite well. What surprised me was that this student didn't even know how a fuel cell even works or the impact hydrogen technology could have on the modern world. He just blindly took a professors word for it without a second thought.

Which brings me to the point of this post. Perhaps the biggest problem to solving the energy crisis is just to educate people about what the hell is actually going on. I've seen many projects get ridiculous amounts of funding, one or two I've been a part of, that are aimed at solving our current predicament but have absolutely no practicality to them what so ever. And yet, a lot of the developing technologies which will serve their purpose in the future are being belittled by arrogant people with stature. Finding the solutions to our energy problems may be difficult, but actually implementing those solutions may be near impossible if the technical community is divided.

 

[mheslep]

Not by what the professor said, I've had this professor before, and know his propaganda that he spreads quite well.

Which brings me to the point of this post. Perhaps the biggest problem to solving the energy crisis is just to educate people about what the hell is actually going on.

Yep.

I've seen many projects get ridiculous amounts of funding, one or two I've been a part of, that are aimed at solving our current predicament but have absolutely no practicality to them what so ever. And yet, a lot of the developing technologies which will serve their purpose in the future are being belittled by arrogant people with stature. Finding the solutions to our energy problems may be difficult, but actually implementing those solutions may be near impossible if the technical community is divided.

So wouldn't it be more useful to point out where this U. professor is mistaken and propagandising, rather than going on about THE MAN (i.e. arrogant people with stature.)

 

[onebad1968]

I would begin with the building of about a 150 nuclear power plants.This could reduce electric bills helping american indusrty compete as well as putting more money in the hands of the consumer. The other large public project would be a high speed electric train system which would follow major interstates this would drastically reduce the wasteful use of tractor trailers to move many goods around the country.Just think of the fuel and pollution (as well as the cost) created moving freight by truck from coast to coast non stop.

 

[mheslep]

The other large public project would be a high speed electric train system which would follow major interstates this would drastically reduce the wasteful use of tractor trailers to move many goods around the country.Just think of the fuel and pollution (as well as the cost) created moving freight by truck from coast to coast non stop.

I don't believe high speed rail is available for freight (weight issues and stress on the tracks). That and efficiency issues aside for the moment, you mention cost. You've no doubt heard about the high cost of high speed rail compared to, almost anything else?

 

[onebad1968]

Certainly it is a costly plan but the trillions the fed has spent in the last year wouldve been a good start and would've put a lot of people to work.What is the cost of doing nothing? Certainly there could be a design that would address the perceived shortfalls of electric hauling freight even if it were a hybrid for the takeoffs etc.

 

[RonL]

Certainly it is a costly plan but the trillions the fed has spent in the last year wouldve been a good start and would've put a lot of people to work.What is the cost of doing nothing? Certainly there could be a design that would address the perceived shortfalls of electric hauling freight even if it were a hybrid for the takeoffs etc.

This might be the start of what you are talking about. Check through their website, a lot that looks good.
I have thought of buying stock, but something has made me hold off. They have always seemed to be needing the assistance of one man to keep them going (Carl E Berg), but the times seem right for them to take off.

Does anyone know anything about this company?



http://www.valence.com/applications/motive/electric_van_and_trucks

 

[onebad1968]

I almost forgot the other power generation idea... I say we use our largest natural source of renewable energy in the country where there's probably enough power to supply a vast amount of our needs completely renewable and Green...and doing so could very well be shown to be a very positive thing for the enviroinment in more than one way.I've thought this for years but the day may be soon approaching when we will actually get serious about it..what am i talking about? I am talking about drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?...

 

[RonL]

I almost forgot the other power generation idea... I say we use our largest natural source of renewable energy in the country where there's probably enough power to supply a vast amount of our needs completely renewable and Green...and doing so could very well be shown to be a very positive thing for the enviroinment in more than one way.I've thought this for years but the day may be soon approaching when we will actually get serious about it..what am i talking about? I am talking about drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?...

Too Simple! Too Easy! Too Dangerous!

Tampering with what is considered a MegaVolcano might trigger just the amount of change needed to break an otherwise stable condition.

 

[mheslep]

Too Simple! Too Easy! Too Dangerous!

Tampering with what is considered a MegaVolcano might trigger just the amount of change needed to break an otherwise stable condition.

Could you demonstrate how geothermal energy plants might have any impact on possible volcanic eruptions?

 

[gmax137]

... drilling in yellowstone to harness the massive amounts of geothermal energy to run steam turbines. Simple?...

'Simple' isn't the word I would use for this idea.

 

[RonL]

Could you demonstrate how geothermal energy plants might have any impact on possible volcanic eruptions?

Well it might have been a knee jerk reaction but I have broken a few pieces of ceramic kitchenware by putting cold water in a hot item.

I know about blowout preventers on high pressure oil wells.

The one thing that still makes me shiver is, the last swimming pool I excavated using an air ram rock breaker mounted on front of my Bobcat skid loader resulted in a breath taking event, There was a final depth of about 6" of lime stone to remove from the deep end and as I started impacting the breaker, the entire bottom dropped about a foot. I had fractured the top of a very small (thank goodness) cavern, having been in Carlsbad and a few caverns here in central Texas I shiver when thinking it might have been the top of a really big room.

The heat of the rock zones 3 and 4 miles down, anywhere, is pretty high.
Messing around the base of any volcano where the stress relief can cause a sudden fracture of the rock formation, seems to me like drilling holes in glass bottles, I have done plenty but have broke a few.

That might not be a good first hand engineering demonstration, but would engineers really be able to predict any possible outcome?? Thermal shock can be a powerful event.

 

[mheslep]

Well it might have been a knee jerk reaction but I have broken a few pieces of ceramic kitchenware by putting cold water in a hot item.

I know about blowout preventers on high pressure oil wells.

The one thing that still makes me shiver is, the last swimming pool I excavated using an air ram rock breaker mounted on front of my Bobcat skid loader resulted in a breath taking event, There was a final depth of about 6" of lime stone to remove from the deep end and as I started impacting the breaker, the entire bottom dropped about a foot. I had fractured the top of a very small (thank goodness) cavern, having been in Carlsbad and a few caverns here in central Texas I shiver when thinking it might have been the top of a really big room.

The heat of the rock zones 3 and 4 miles down, anywhere, is pretty high.
Messing around the base of any volcano where the stress relief can cause a sudden fracture of the rock formation, seems to me like drilling holes in glass bottles, I have done plenty but have broke a few.

That might not be a good first hand engineering demonstration, but would engineers really be able to predict any possible outcome?? Thermal shock can be a powerful event.

It's one thing to talk about man made wells and the violence of blow-outs, it is another to suggest that has anything to do with a colossal magma chamber 50 miles below Yellowstone. As for the we-dont-know-what-could-happen school of thought, well there is no end to where that can take you:

Drilling to hell

The Kola Superdeep Borehole was the source of a tabloid rumor, started by a Finnish newspaper, that Russian researchers had burrowed through to Hell. The story was reproduced by several American tabloids. It stated that 9 miles (14.4 km) down into the Earth's crust (1.4 miles deeper than the real borehole), the scientists reached a pocket of air with a temperature of 2000 degrees F. Intrigued, they sent down a heat-tolerant microphone. The microphone picked up the screams of the damned. The rumor was exacerbated when recordings of the alleged screams popped up on the Internet shortly thereafter.

 

[OmCheeto]

Drilling to hell

Why not just shove a tube down Kilauea's throat, with a cap on the end. When it get's down to the layer of molten gold, we just pop the end off the end of the pipe and let the gold pour all over the island. Once the system has equalized, we can cap the area, and extract all of the thermal energy. The now solidified gold will pay for the 300 years of debt we'd have accumulated trying to reach the layer of gold. Of course, over the course of 300 years, we'd have determined the thermal stress limits of rock and... wait... this isn't the lounge...

oh poop.

 

[RonL]

Hmmmmm! "Volcano Tappers, LLC".

If I was just a little younger

 

[WillWard]

Problems as I see them :
1) We all rely on energy at an unsustainable level
2) Population growth is massively underestimated when reported - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/09/population-unitednations

If you follow the above link, it is basically a report that is repeated heavily in the news, it states that population could hit 9 billion people by 2050.
If you look at the data they have used, they have figures from 1950 to 2009, over this 59 year period the average population increase is 1.7%, with a maximum of 2.05% in 1968 and minimum of 1.175% in 2009. Their projections work out as follows
2019 – 0.97% increase
2029 – 0.706% increase
2039 – 0.51% increase
2049 – 0.318% increase
2050 – 0.29% increase

I can't see how population increase will be smaller than it has been in the last 60 years, and continue to shrink for 40 years.

If you continue the estimations based on the previous 59 year average of 1.7% increase per year then you would have figures closer to the following:
2015 – 7.556 bn
2025 – 8.944 bn
2035 – 10.586 bn
2045 – 12.529 bn
2050 – 13.631 bn – if you continue to extrapolate figures based on a 40 year doubling rate (which we are experiencing thus far) – then:
2090 – 27.262 bn
2130 - 54.524 bn

Solutions :
1) - The obvious reduce carbon emissions etc. I think while efforts should be made to create energy with lower carbon footprints, massive re-education of people is hugely important. If fuels run out in the next decade or 2 people should be able to carry on surviving on what we have available

2) - Overpopulation is a serious problem, unfortunately every solution that actively solves the issue is in-humane, it naturally has to be.
I think efforts should be made to work out exactly how many people the planet can support, by means of maximum food output, and maximum power production. We are possibly very close to the figure of maximum occupancy of the entire world, and if we exceed that then the years following are going to be very difficult, anarchy in the streets etc. We will likely get very close to the limit, and then experience a year or 2 of poor crop yields and experience massive worldwide food shortages.
The next step once we know what maximum occupancy is would be to limit population. This seems a terrible thing, but the time will come that it has to be a "one in one out" society. The sooner people start thinking this way the better.

Also we should throw a massive solar collector in space over the north and south pole, this could collect energy to be transported to Earth somehow, and by blocking the sun from the ice caps this could help stop them melting and sort out the raising sea levels :)

 

[mheslep]

I can't see how population increase will be smaller than it has been in the last 60 years, and continue to shrink for 40 years.

Why not? The trend is declining growth rates, as you noted:

2.05% in 1968 and minimum of 1.175% in 2009.

Population growth rates are declining globally, and in fact population flat or even declining in many developed countries - Japan, W. Europe. That is, there's a strong correlation rate between development and population growth. Actually I expect the somewhat dated UN figure of 9b/2050 is high now, as they probably underestimated the surprising development rate in China.

 

[WillWard]

The figures of population increase go up and down during the 59 years they provide data for, but they are all increasing. Without trying to sound patronising, are you sure you are not confusing population flat with a non increasing level of growth.

If the population is no longer increasing then why are new houses still being developed at high rates? - will the value of our existing properties fall in coming years rather than rise? will banks start charging for storing money rather than paying out interest on it?

May i ask where you get your figures from, as i have no idea whether i am actually correct or not, but from the figures i have looked at it shows continual growth.
During the 59 year period i had figures for. At a few points over the period the rate of growth decreases, and then back up, the lowest it got was in 2009, but this wasn't the only dip, and it always came back up.

 

[WillWard]

Also, does the fact that you picked up on the figures in my comment, but said nothing about the huge solar collector blocking the sun from the artic, mean that you are in support of my idea?

:)

 

[mheslep]

The figures of population increase go up and down during the 59 years they provide data for, but they are all increasing. Without trying to sound patronising, are you sure you are not confusing population flat with a non increasing level of growth.

If the population is no longer increasing then why are new houses still being developed at high rates? - will the value of our existing properties fall in coming years rather than rise? will banks start charging for storing money rather than paying out interest on it?

May i ask where you get your figures from, as i have no idea whether i am actually correct or not, but from the figures i have looked at it shows continual growth.
During the 59 year period i had figures for. At a few points over the period the rate of growth decreases, and then back up, the lowest it got was in 2009, but this wasn't the only dip, and it always came back up.

Again I spoke to rates of growth, not to growth. The rate of world population growth has clearly decreased over the last 60 years, an indisputable fact. In some developed countries, the rate is actually negative.

Wiki will do for now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

The fastest rates of world population growth (increases above 1.8% per year) were seen briefly during the 1950s then for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s (see graph). The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963.

Regarding developed and developing countries, here's China, with a clearly decreasing rate:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

Japan's population peaked in 2005
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...d+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN

Similar for Germany:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...d+population#met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:DEUCollection of all the smaller EU countries. These populations trends are 'sustainable' essentially forever:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en_US&dl=en

 

[mheslep]

Also, does the fact that you picked up on the figures in my comment, but said nothing about the huge solar collector blocking the sun from the artic, mean that you are in support of my idea?

:)

Google or search PF threads for Space Based Solar Power. It's been discussed repeatedly.

 

[WillWard]

are you suggesting that the population of the Earth will simply level out?

I can't help but think we are very close to the point that growth simply won't be able to continue, if this has to be forced then a lot of things will change for a lot of people.

Back to my first point, if we know what the sustainable level of people is, including factors like poor crop yields in some years, then we can prepare before the inevitable overpopulation occurs